The bottom line is that before this recent release by wikileaks, a Swedish judge through the case out of court because of a lack of evidence. As you say though, this situational is highly difficult. On the one hand, rape must be met with a swift response. On the other hand, there is probably no person on this planet who is more likely to be the victim of a smear campaign than Julian Assange. Rekov (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rekov (talk)04:45, 3 December 2010

Well they say it was rape but last time I checked they just claimed he didn't want to use a condom. Of course it's a smear, the US wants his head

209.129.112.6 (talk)19:08, 3 December 2010

Correction: The details that were brought to my attention were that there were two women filed complaints. Both in Sweden, whilst Julian was working to secure residency and full protection under Sweden's press laws for Wikileaks.

What's unusual is, neither complaint is 'clear-cut rape'; both women stated that something consentual switched to non-consentual. One case, apparently, is a woman saying JA refused to stop when a condom broke...

I've had condoms break - one more than one occasion. I've noticed; never-ever has my female partner felt the breakage.

So, yes, the whole thing stinks. There's some irony in JA seeking to exploit Sweden's strong press laws, then facing their strong rape/women's rights laws. It stinks. To be honest, it looks like mega-clumsy cold war playbook shtick. What next? Polonium via a spiked umbrella in his chosen UK hidey-hole? Puh-leeze.

Brian McNeil / talk21:31, 3 December 2010